of the return of demagogues to parliament, he should only answer that he wished to see them there. He had never known a single demagogue, who, when elected to a seat in that House, did not shrink to his proper dimensions. In the event of a parliamentary reform, it would be his wish to see a nest of boroughs reserved for their separate use, and he should not be alarmed at their introduction, even although they had been qualified in Palace-yard. "Here," he would say, "let this demagogue appear; and let him do his worst." This bill, or, as he did not mean to say that it was perfect of its kind, a bill of the same nature was necessary, and it was most expedient at the present season. The moment was peculiarly favourable for discussion, and singularly free from any hazard with which the measure might otherwise be attended. We were in the enjoyment of a peace, in a great degree achieved by Catholic arms, and cemented by Catholic blood-a peace which, notwithstanding the terrific aspect of affairs in one quarter of Europe, he hoped was yet destined to be permanent. But it became us, with a view to political contingencies, to fortify ourselves by adopting all those means of strength, which were offered to our hands; and never did a more auspicious period occur for augmenting our resources and elevating our hopes. It must be always beneficial to extinguish a question, that never could be discussed without agitating large classes of the community, and which, if now lost, would be revived from year to year with increasing and more hopeless agitation. It was difficult to say, in what form the ex

pression of national gratitude was most effectually conveyed; certainly not always by the proud column or the triumphal arch; but, that it would appear in full radiance, and shine out with lasting splendour, if this grand effort of legislation were consummated, he had not the shadow of a doubt. It was indifferent to him, provided the result was concord, by what particular mode, or on what general understanding it was established. He cared not, whether it was plucked from Protestant gratitude, or was tendered in generous confidence, as a voluntary gift. It would in either case bless both the giver and the receiver-resembling those silent operations of nature, which were usually beneficial, whether they rose in grateful exhalations or descended in fertilizing showers. And should we adopt this measure, he would cheerfully pledge all the prescience of his mind, that we would not repent of the result, but would ere long reap from it a rich harvest of added strength, enthusiasm, and renown.

Mr. Canning's speech was received with fervent and general applause. The House then divided:

For the original question, 254; Against it, 243: Majority for the second reading of the bill, 11.

On the 23rd of March, when this measure came again under consideration, Mr. Plunkett was absent in consequence of the death of his wife; and sir J. Newport moved the recommitment of the bill. The House having gone into the committee, the clause respecting the new oath of supremacy was opposed by sir William Scott, sir J. Nichol, Mr. Peel, Mr. Brownlow, and Mr. Wetherell. The measure

was supported by Mr. C. Grant, sir J. Mackintosh, and Lord Castlereagh, and opposed by Mr. Peel and others, and carried on a division by 230 to 216.

On the 26th of March, sir J. Newport, in moving the commitment of the Catholic bills, gave notice of his intention to propose the consolidation of the two bills now before the House. This intimation called forth a statement from Mr. C. Hutchinson, in which he declared, that he had received a communication from high authority in Ireland, a titular bishop, announcing the opposition of the Catholic clergy to the bill for regulating their intercourse with the see of Rome, and mentioning, that a meeting of the Catholic bishops was about to take place, in order to consider this important subject. The House then went into the committee. The clause respecting the declaration against transubstantiation was agreed to. Upon the reading of that clause, which provided that nothing in the present act should extend to repeal any of the laws in force, respecting the Protestant succession to the throne, the uniformity of public prayers, or the administration of the sacraments in the established church, Mr. Banks moved the clause of which he had previously given notice; the object of which was, to prevent Catholics from sitting in either House of parliament. A long discussion took place upon this proposition, in which Mr. Canning took the chief share, and 'ultimately the committee divided; when the numbers appeared, for Mr. Banks's proposition, 211; Against it, 223; Majority in favour of the bill, 12.

On the following day, the pro

posed bill for regulating the intercourse of the Catholics with the see of Rome was, on the motion of sir J. Newport, referred to the committee, for the purpose of consolidating the two bills.

Mr. Peel moved, that Roman Catholics should be excluded from seats in the privy council, and also from the judicial bench. The motion was opposed by sir J. Newport, and supported by sir J. Nicholl and others; and, after a discussion of some length, the committee divided; when the amendment was rejected by a majority of 19; the numbers being, in favour of it, 169; Against it, 188. An amendment, proposed by Mr. Goulburn, to render Catholics ineligible to hold the office of governor of a colony, shared the same fate. It was rejected on a division; the numbers being, For the amendment, 120; Against it, 163.

On the 28th of March the House proceeded with the consideration of the clauses of the consolidated Catholic bill.

Mr. Hutchinson strongly op. posed the intercourse clauses, as tending to degrade the Catholic clergy unnecessarily. The hon. member, however, submitted no motion to the House on the subject. The House ultimately went into the committee, and the several clauses were agreed to, with some verbal amendments.

Mr. Ellis proposed a clause for excluding Catholic ecclesiastics from seats in parliament, which was agreed to.

On the following day, when the report was brought up, Mr. Croker moved a clause to enable the Crown to make a suitable provision for the Catholic clergy. Lord Castlereagh resisted the pro

position as premature; and Mr. Croker withdrew it for the present, declaring himself satisfied with the admission that his principle was just, though the season for acting upon it had not arrived.

On the 2nd of April, the question being put for the third reading of the bill, sir William Scott moved as an amendment, that it should be read that day six months. Sir George Hill seconded the amendment, arguing on the general principles of the measure, and alleging that there was already experimental proof, that the measure did not promote conciliation. The Roman Catholic clergy and laity were united against it. They called it "the slavery bill," the bill of insults"—and there was no epithet too insulting to be applied to those, whom they sneeringly called "their advocates."-In Dublin, the titular archbishop, Dr. Troy, had assembled the clergy; and they had come to certain resolutions, declaring that they could not assent to the provisions of the bill for regulating their intercourse with the see of Rome, or to those which sanctioned the intermeddling of the government with the appointment of their bishops. In Limerick, the Roman Catholic bishop had called the clergy together, and they had come to certain resolutions, disapproving of the bill, which were stronger than those come to at Dublin. Similar meetings were announced to be held at Cork, Galway, Tuam, and Kerry. The sentiments of Dr. Coppinger, the titular bishop of Cloyne, were also strongly opposed to the bill. He had distinctly declared, that the oath

The Bill, being thus carried in triumph through the Commons, was, on the 3rd of April, carried up to the Lords, by sir John Newport, attended by an unusually large number of members. Upon the motion of lord Donoughmore, it was read a first time without any debate; lord Liverpool and the Chancellor intimating their decided hostility to the measure in both its parts. Many petitions were presented both for and against it: and, while it was yet in suspense, a petition was laid on the table of the lower House, signed by the Catholic bishop, and eighty or ninety Catholic clergymen of the diocese of Limerick, which remonstrated strongly against the regulations contained in what had been originally the second of Mr. Plunkett's bills. The second reading came on, on the 16th of April, and the debate on it occupied the Lords, during that and the following night. Lord Donoughmore moved the second reading of the bill, and after supporting the general principle of the measure, entered into a detail of alterations, which he meant to propose in it, if it should go to a committee. Of these alterations, the most important related to the clause, which provided that

a commission should be created in both countries, for the purpose of receiving and considering the rescripts from the see of Rome, Instead of these two commissions for England and Ireland respectively, he would propose that there should be but one commission only to transact the business for both countries, in this the seat of the government; and that the lay members of this commission should not be appointed at the fortuitous selection of the ministers; but that they should consist permanently of certain great officers of the crown, to be particularly named in the bill, and of no others.

Lord Mansfield spoke against the bill, and was followed by the bishops of London and Chester. The duke of Sussex, lord Harrowby, and the bishop of Norwich spoke for it. On the second evening of the debate, the duke of York in a short speech made a declaration of sentiments, which coming from the heir of the crown, could not fail to damp the hopes of the Catholics. He rose, he said, with the utmost reluctance to oppose the second reading of the bill; but there were occasions on which it be came an individual not to step aside, but to come forward and boldly avow the sentiments which he entertained. The present he considered to be one of those occasions; for, were not their lordships called upon to sanction a measure, which it was admitted, even by its advocates, would effect a great change in the constitution as established at the Revolution of 1688, and in the system which had seated his majesty's family on the throne? When measures similar to the

present had been proposed by a statesman, who had rendered the most eminent services to his country, his royal highness said, he had strenuously opposed them, on a thorough conviction of their dangerous tendency. The more he had since heard the subject discussed, the more he had been confirmed in the opinion which he had then expressed. He had always understood, that the Church of England was an inte gral part of the constitution. Long might it remain so! But let not their lordships imagine, that he was an enemy to toleration. He should always be happy, that every sect should have the full exercise of its religion, as long as it did not affect the security of the established church, and as long as its members remained loyal subjects. But, there was a great difference between allowing the free exercise of religion, and granting political power. As he felt himself inadequate to the task of entering into the details of the question, and wished not to detain those noble lords who were better qualified to take an expansive view of the subject, he should only repeat, that his opposition to the bill arose from principles which he had embraced ever since he had been able to judge for himself, and which he hoped he should cherish to the last day of his life.

The Lord Chancellor, in opposing the bill, impressed upon the House that, if it passed, the person holding the office which he then had the honour to fill, would be the only layman in the kingdom, who must, of necessity, be a Protestant. He could not consent to so sweeping an alteration in the constitution. This

bill would necessarily carry in its train a repeal of the Test and Corporation acts, and what security would then remain to the church? Mr. Pitt had never been able to devise any securities satisfactory to himself; and those suggested by lord Grenville had not proved satisfactory to the Catholics. He then analyzed the contents of the bill, which he contended was a mass of anomalies and inconsistencies.

Lord Grenville strongly contended for allowing a bill, which had received the deliberate sanction of the other House, and the object of which was, to give full effect to the Union with Ireland, by admitting the great mass of its people within the pale of the constitution, to pass on to that stage, in which its details could undergo a full discussion.

Lord Liverpool said, there were not three lines in the bill to which he could agree. His opinion was, that the parliament and the privy council should be kept as they were. It was a more manly course in him to declare this at once, than to encourage hopes and expectations which might never be realized. The rights to civil and religious liberty ought to be enjoyed by every man in the state. But the possession of political privileges and political power stood on a different ground. It was for the state to say, who should be admitted to the enjoyment of those privileges, and that power; it was for the state to judge, what was best for its own security. He believed this measure, as it regarded the great mass of the population of Ireland, would have no effect whatever. If any be. nefit could be conferred on the

Irish Catholics, their lordships ought to bestow it on them, if it was not attended with danger to the state; but they also owed a duty to the Protestants of Ireland, whose liberties, lives and properties, they were bound to protect.

The Marquis of Lansdown contended, that the bill tended not to weaken, but to strengthen and secure the basis of the constitution in church and state.In the sequel of the debate, the motion for the second reading was supported by lords Melville, Ashburton, and Somers, and opposed by lord Sidmouth.

On a division, the motion was negatived by 159 to 120, proxies included.

The question of parliamentary reform had been suffered to slumber in the preceding session: it was now brought forward with increased ardour and pertinacity. Several petitions had been presented in its favour, and public meetings had taken place, in which language of extreme violence had been used. A reform dinner was given on the 4th of May, in the London tavern, which was numerously attended by gentlemen of consideration and property. Mr. Lambton, Mr. Whitbread, Mr. Coke, lord Nugent, Mr. Curwen, Mr. Bennett, agreed with each other in the vehemence of their protestations; but perhaps Dr. Lushington out-did them all:-Parliamentary reform, he said, was the allimportant question. If it failed, every popular measure failed; if it succeeded, all the prosperous events, which the country expected, would be realized, and, what was above all other advantages most valuable, freedom of